Caltrans and CTC propose one-week counts, CAD portal and validation standards for ATP projects

At a Dec. 10 CTC workshop, Julia Griswold (presented as affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley) and Caltrans/CTC staff outlined proposed updates to ATP count methodology and introduced the California Active Transportation Data (CAD) Portal as a clearinghouse for project counts.

Griswold said the portal and guidance aim to improve the accuracy and consistency of performance metrics. “We are asking for 1 week, or 7 continuous days at each location,” she said, describing the one-week baseline as a way to avoid complex expansion-factor math and to produce more accurate annual average daily traffic (AADT) estimates for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Key elements of the proposal - Count locations and frequency: Infrastructure projects would require 1–3 count locations depending on project budget (criteria defined in the guidelines). Safe Routes to School tallies currently recommend classroom counts but staff will consider sampling or caregiver/parent surveys as reasonable alternatives on a case-by-case basis. - Methods: Primary recommendation is manual counts from video; validated automated methods (tubes, infrared, video analytics, LiDAR) are allowed as alternatives but must be validated. - Duration: One continuous week of counts at each selected location is recommended to capture daily variability and simplify AADT estimation. - Validation: For new automated devices a quick validation check is recommended (count 10 users of each type in each direction) and devices should meet an 80% accuracy threshold before relying on automated outputs; longer validations are required where only time‑bin data are available. - Portal and calculations: Counts will be uploaded to the CAD data portal, which staff said will perform AADT calculations and reduce the burden of manual math for applicants; portal features are expected to be available for Cycle 8 implementation.

Stakeholder concerns and practical notes Participants asked whether data collection line items could meaningfully inflate project budgets and what happens if procurement delays make counts out-of-date; staff said they expect count costs to be modest relative to typical project minimums and that exceptions can be discussed with project managers if weather or scheduling prevents timing alignment. A workshop participant cautioned that some agencies worry data release can create liability exposure; “The answer was because we don't wanna open up lawsuits,” a participant said recounting a prior symposium exchange about Caltrans data sharing. Staff acknowledged stakeholders have raised liability concerns and said the portal guidance will address validation, upload and data quality procedures.

Next steps CTC and Caltrans will post a draft of the interim count guidance and a comment form on the CTC website and requested written feedback by Dec. 19. Staff said they will continue refining Safe Routes sampling options and the portal validation process before finalizing guidance for Cycle 8.